StudiesinHumanitiesandSocialSciences, Vol. VI, No.1, 1999, pp.l9-31.

Cambios sociopolíticos en el siglo XIX y el surgimiento de Orissa Mahima

Dharma
FANINDAM DEO
Khadar College Khaliar
Mahima Dharma surgió en la parte central y occidental de Orissa durante
el siglo XIX. Este Dharma hasta ahora ha recibido muy poca atención de
los estudiosos. El argumento en las páginas siguientes se sugiere que a
través de un adecuado análisis de Mahima Dharma una comprensión más
profunda de la evolución del entorno social de Orissa se puede llegar a
ella.
El estudio de este dharma se vuelve particularmente importante en vista
de sus vínculos con los conflictos sociopolíticos en Orissa a través del
siglo XIX.
Haber derrocado el Marathas, los británicos estaban comprometidos en
consolidar su posición durante este período. Como parte de este proceso
se dio reconocimiento al local de rajas, maharajas y mezquinos jefes de
diferentes fincas como feudatory jefes y los zamindars de diferentes
fincas.
Por su parte estos gobernantes, pretendiendo status independiente,
también estaban tratando de consolidar y legitimar su posición. Hacia el
cumpli• ing este fin una estrategia importante fue la propagación de
"hinduismo"• especialmente del Jagannath cult. Además buildingJagannath
templos en sus capitales, las mercedes de tierras fueron dadas para la
construcción de templos y también a Brahmanas y los titulares de los
servicios no-tribal. Estas prácticas de los gobernantes locales acelerada
por los siglos XVIII y XIX.
Previsiblemente los enfermos fueron las tribus locales y las secciones
inferiores de
jati Sociedad que fueron como resultado desplazadas o explotados.
Sin embargo, el entorno socio-cultural del siglo XIX Orissa y muchos de
los procesos sociales y culturales emergentes como tribales en ella•
interacción con no-tribal, interacción intra e inter tribales, religiosos
cambiante medio, las nuevas pautas de estratificación social etc. todos
abarcan importantes tendencias enraizadas en pre• tiempos coloniales. Por
consiguiente, cualquier análisis integral de los procesos históricos
detrás de este movimiento se ha de extender a un período anterior a la
colonización.
Yo
con la desintegración del imperio de Gupta, surgieron numerosos kingships
a nivel local, subregional y regional a lo largo de

20 FANINDAM DEO
1 norte y centro de la India. En Orissa, este periodo vio el surgimiento
de una convergencia rural del poder político, dirigido por
2 jefes autóctonos y, en algunos casos, por los jefes de origen
desconocido. Los jefes locales formaron pequeños reinos en las cuencas
fluviales y se convirtieron en campeones de
3 'Hinduismo' . Para obtener autoridad espiritual y reforzar así su
pretensión de ser gobernantes, los gobernantes locales Brahmanas acogió a
sus tribunales.
Por su parte los Brahmanas preparado mitos y genealogías
4 pretendiendo legitimar la autoridad de los nuevos caudillos.
Sin embargo, mientras se busca esa legitimidad, la mayoría entre esos
caudillos oriundos de uno u otro grupo aborigen local, al mismo tiempo,
procuró mantener sus vínculos con el autochthons e integrarlas en sus
reinos. Para sostener su imperio necesitaban al menos la co-operación, si
no, la lealtad de los aborígenes, que constituyen el grueso de la
población. Evidentemente los gobernantes no podía prevalecer sobre la
sociedad de caza pastoral como quizás ocurrió en el sur de
la India 5. Esto, por cierto, es una característica especial de la
formación de los distintos reinos en esta área. En lugar de
"desplazamiento ustained' la formación local fue 'marcado por la
aculturación de las tribus locales", que eran cada vez más introducidos
en la sociedad Brahmanic y transformado
6 principalmente a los campesinos y otras castas profesionales.
En muchos sentidos, la historia de la zona es visible en términos de su
síntesis de los aborígenes y Brahmanic elementos que culminaron en el
Jagannath cultura de Orissa. Como parte del establecimiento de su
hegemonía, los gobernantes locales asimilados deidades aborígenes en sus
creencias. La piedra aborigen objetos pueden ser fácilmente identificadas
con el Shiva linga.
Un buen ejemplo de este proceso está disponible en el templo de Lingaraja
en Bhubaneshwar, donde aún hoy tanto Badus (aborígenes) así como
7 brahmanes son sacerdotes.
Además, el patronato real de deidades aborígenes sirve para consolidar la
legitimación de los gobernantes y el poder político que ejerce sobre los
territorios recién adquiridos. En este proceso, era importante
Vaisnavism: ilustrado nuevamente por Lordjagannath ofPuri,
8 una deidad aborigen Hinduised como una encarnación (avatar) ofVishnu.
El desarrollo político de Orissa en la post-Gupta período estuvo marcado
por la aparición de pequeños reinos y la integración gradual de estos
pequeños reinos, primero en sub-regionales y posteriormente reinos
regionales. Por ejemplo, en el valle de Mahanadi superior• presente
occidental y oriental de Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, un jefe de origen
obscuro podría establecer un pequeño reino llamado Sarabhapuria
9 reino alrededor del siglo VI D.C. El valle de Mahanadi superior le
proporcionó la tierra fértil en la que establecer un reino. Hay
10 fue un intento de mejorar las instalaciones de riego. Posteriormente,

en el siglo XIX cambios sociopolíticos Orissa 21

Brahmanas fueron invitados y deliberadamente se asentaron en el interior.
Quizás esto fue con el fin de iniciar un proceso de aculturación y así
sedenterise la caza, la recolección y el cultivo itinerante
11 comunidades como agricultores asentados. Casualmente, después de la
caída del imperio de Gupta, los Brahmanas del norte de la India fueron en
busca de
12 patronos y los nuevos jefes, por otro lado, quería estos Brahmanas'
servicios para legitimar sus reivindicaciones.13 La articulación política
de Orissa se caracterizó por local, sub-regional y regional, integración
.lateral desde abajo. Este proceso extendido a lo largo de los siglos,
finalizando cuando la entidad regional se rompió, particularmente con el
advenimiento del sultán de Bengala.
La desintegración del imperio de Gupta ayudó a los jefes indígenas de la
localidad para extender su autoridad política en sus zonas respectivas. A
lo largo de un período de tiempo esto ha provocado el surgimiento de
poderosos reinos dirigidos por Amaryakula de Saravapura, Panduvansis de
Mekela, Sailodbhavas ofKongada Mandala, Bhaumakaras ofTosali, Somavansis
de Kosala y Gangavansis de Kalinga. Entre el 5 y el siglo XIV, los
impulsos de la fragmentación política y descentralización fueron causados
desde abajo y no desde arriba. Los jefes aborígenes y aquellos de origen
obscuro, tomando ventaja de una autoridad central débil subió al poder y
formaron pequeños reinos independientes. Aquí nos encontramos con la
interesante conjunción de una regla y emergentes Brahamanas inmigrante:
el ambicioso chiefs reivindicando la autoridad política tenía el patrono-
búsqueda Brahmanas que les sirve para justificar sus reclamaciones.
En Orissa durante los siglos XV y XVI, un proceso puede ser
14 obsetved similar a lo que ha sido obsetved en otros lugares en el
norte de la India.
La desintegración del Ganges y reinos Somavansi resultó en la
descentralización y fragmentación política. Esto se debió en parte a las
particiones de la familia gobernante y en parte por la práctica
generalizada de la concesión de grandes y pequeños territorios vasallos
que atrincherado territorialmente y finalmente se independizó potentados.
Otro aspecto importante del desarrollo político de Orissa fue
la tendencia de los gobernantes de reinos sub-regional para desplazar su
capital costera hacia Orissa. Además de otros factores que el motivo
principal parece haber sido el deseo de controlar a las fértiles llanuras
costeras y así mantener un reino regionales más grandes que necesitan
elaborar la administración. El hinterland de Orissa, con sus colinas, los
bosques, la presencia preponderante de cazadores-recolectores y algunos
focos de la agricultura estable podrían sostener las demandas de pequeños
reinos solamente.
Así que cuando los reinos srriall ampliado en reinos regionales que
desplazan a los más fértiles llanuras que podría generar la necesaria

22 FANINDAM DEO
superávit. En consecuencia, encontramos que los límites geográficos de
estos reinos fueron nunca es fija. Los gobernantes de reinos regionales
también tenía
para adoptar estrategias diferentes e incorporar diferentes ideologías
para llevar pequeños reinos bajo su hegemonía mientras simultáneamente se
legitiman sus reivindicaciones a nuevas fronteras constantemente
cambiantes.
II
El siglo XVI Historia de Orissa es caracterizado por el crecimiento de la
dominación Brahmanic, el descontento entre las masas, la desintegración
de la regional empir~, lugar de Samanta rajas y su afán de poder y
estados independientes, el ataque por el sultán de bengala y, finalmente,
en la última década, la captura por el Mugha1s.
Entre los siglos xii y xvi,Jagannath había sido mono• polised por los
Brahmanas y el emperador regional. Jagannath templos fueron confinadas a
Cuttack y Puri hasta el siglo XVI.
Pero después del siglo XVI las rajas de Sambalpur, Keonjhar, y Mayurbhanj
constructedjagannath templos en sus respectivas capitales.
Según Kulke, Jagannath se ha convertido en un símbolo de la realeza hindú
y la autoridad real. Él considera la construcción de
15 templos Jagannath como una declaración simbólica de independencia.
En el siglo XVI, también debemos tener en cuenta una amplia gama de
intermediarios entre la regla y el campesino; la aparición de las ramas
más jóvenes de la familia gobernante controlar por separado los
territorios heredados por ellos a lo largo de Orissa. La práctica de la
concesión de pequeños territorios a las ramas más jóvenes de la familia
gobernante, junto con derechos administrativos y fiscales sobre ellos, y
también frescos las conquistas de las ramas más jóvenes para su propia
consolidación, provocó la fragmentación política. Estas ramas jóvenes de
antiguas familias dominantes atrincherado territorialmente y finalmente
emergió como independientes rajas.
Estos r::yas, emulando el elder branch, trató de aumentar sus propios
recursos y break. Primero, ellos necesitaban un excedente agrícola para
el mantenimiento de la maquinaria del Estado. Se aceleró la tala de
bosques, invitando a los campesinos no tribales a asentarse en sus
respectivos
rajyas. La excavación de los estanques y la construcción de terraplenes
por los campesinos siguió adelante. En muchos lugares del interior,
aunque los bosques" fueron liquidados, los dioses locales de la gente del
bosque eran ahora adorado incluso por los nuevos colonos. En muchos
lugares los sacerdotes tribales (jhankar) fueron retenidos. Los
gobernantes protegгa las deidades locales y elevado a la posición de sus
This Devi o numen protector:
Sambaleswari en Sambalpur, en Patnagath Raktambari Pataneswari, en

cambio en el siglo XIX sociopolíticas 23

Khariar Bhatarika Orissa, en Baramba, Maninageswari a Ranpur, Manikeswari
en Bhuwanipatna. Por consiguiente, en Orissa encontramos sacerdotes
tribales realizar pooja en templos. En el Devi y Siva templos de Orissa,
además de los sacerdotes, es tribal de la inusual jatis como Malí, que
paiks thanapatis, aldeas habitadas por poblaciones tribales y no tribales
obtenga sus sacerdotes. Hasta el siglo XVI Jagannath ideología no fue
usada por los jefes del hinterland de Orissa para su legitimación en su
área respectiva y el thakurani devi o de los aborígenes fue utilizado.
La Samanta rajas, su~ familiares y titulares de servicio podría haber
invadido tierras que los aborígenes habían celebrado comunitariamente
durante esta fase de expansión. Las tierras y aldeas fueron concedidas a
tales parientes de los gobernantes como la familia pattayats (el segundo
hijo),
Lalu (el tercer hijo), Baboo (los hijos de una concubina/amante); para la
rani, la reina, como khorak posak (mantenimiento de inmuebles); a los
Brahmanes como brahmottar y sasana y al dalabehera y nayak (jefes
militares tanto tribales y no tribales). Costumbre exige este estrato
superior de la sociedad, no para empuñar el arado. Por lo tanto, estas
personas, a su vez, la tierra arrendada a cultivadores. Inmediatamente
debajo de la clase privilegiada eran los e <:onomically superior
aboriginals who aspired to Kshatriya status.
Their superiority was recognised by the local rulers who gave them a
higher position in the kingdom. This recognition by the ruler combined
with their economic superiority secured for them a higher social status.
This left the vast majority of the aboriginal community and low ranking
service jatis at the bottom of the social structure.
16 The sultan of Bengal attacked Orissa in AD 1568. His deputy Kalapahad
destroyed images of the Jagannath temple of Puri and the Sun temple of
Konark. Taking advantage of the internal dissension of the Samanta rcyas-
perhaps some of the rajas even invited the sultan of Bengal-the latter
captured Orissa easily. Then came the Mughals in 1580s who captured
Orissa from the sultan. Man Singh was appointed as the governor and a new
bandobast or settlement was
17 introduced in Orissa in 1582. According to this settlement the
fertile coastal region was taken under direct management, Purl w'as
declared as crown land and the hinterland of Orissa was given to twenty
four local ruler according to a their respective zones of influence. They
were recognised as Garhjat chiefs or semi-autonomous chief in return for
an annual payment. The raja of Khurdha was recognised as the Gajapati but
he was given Puri-Khurdha and thirty one small zamindars
18 only.
In the changed circumstances the Gajapati of Puri lost political power,
his resource base and was confined to a limited area. There were bitter
contests between local rajas, the sultan of Bengal and the
24 FANINDAM DEO
Mughal governor of Orissa for control over the temple city. Obviously
the wealth and pilgrim tax of the Puri temple were the main attractions.
For nearly' 150 years uncertainty prevailed. Between 1600 and 1750 A.D.
thejagannath temple was attacked not less than 12 times by Hindu chiefs,
Muslim sultans and Mughal governors. The Mughals recognised the
intermediaries who had appeared during the earlier period‫ ؛‬some of whom
came to be called zamindars. The small local uya's territory
was called Garhjat, and the raja Garhjatr~a. Though the above terms were
used, in reality none of them actually owned land in the sense of having
private property rights. The land in the fertile coastal plain of Orissa
was divided by the Mughals into two‫ ؛‬the best lands they kept under their
direct management while the rest were given to the service holders for
their maintenance but not with property rights.
The Marathas got coastal Orissa in 1751 and western Orissa in 1755.
They captured Puri in 1751 and reduced the Khurdha raja to being a mere
zamindar of a few estates. They, furthermore, divided Orissa into two
major political divisions: Mughalbandi and Garhjats. Twenty four Garhjat
chiefs of the hilly and forest tracts in the interior of Orissa were
recognised and required to pay a fixed annual tribute. There
was, however, no definite rule for fixing this tribute and they were,
therefore, almost autonomous. The Mughalbandi area was divided into four
chaklas or divisions and was under the direct management
19 of the Marathas. They further divided chaklas to into parganas which
were managed by thirty two amils. At the lowest level the mukaddams
and talukadars were appointed to collect revenue. The Marathas granted
rent free lands to temples, Brahmanas and maths.
Both the Mughals and the Marathas did not bring the Garhjats under their
direct administration. They were satisfied with collecting an annual
tribute so long as the loyalty to the uyas was assured. Rather than
dealing with people at large, they preferred to pressurise the chiefs. In
other words, the Mughals and Marathas did not have any significant direct
impact on the manner in which the social milieu was
evolving in the Garhjats. But in the coastal plains the reduction of the
position of the G~apati of Orissa and the appointment of zamindars,
jagirdars had its impact in entire Orissa. The zamindars, jagirdars and
the Garhjat chiefs exercised control over the cultivators but they were
not given hereditary rights over land. During the time of Mughal and
Maratha rule the Gari:Uat r~as consolidated their position in a slow and
long process. The r~as recognised the tribal chiefs as gahatia,
dalabehera, muthahid and gartia etc. The latter also obtained areas over
which they exercised power on the basis of a military tenure. For this
they were obliged to perform military service upon demand. Some

Soci(}-Political Change in Nineteenth Century Orissa 25

powerlul tribal chiefs who did not submit to such a tenure were won over
by matrimonial alliances. The rajas also depended upon the tribals, who
were in a majority, for recruiting his paiks (soldiery).
The recognition of the gahatia, muthahid, gartia helped to establish a
range of intermediaries between the Garhjat raja and the peasant.
These rajas also invited non-tribals with their experience of developed
agriculture to generate more surplus. Possibly, these non-tribals were
invited from outside not to introduce intensive agriculture on the lands
of tribals but to clear forests for extending cultivation or perhaps to
settle in the land vacated in the process of shifting cultivation. These
rulers seldom transgressed limits that were acceptable to tribals or
rather they dared not do so. The availability of considerable fallow land
and forest might have enabled them to expand agriculture without
encroaching upon tribal land and villages. Nonetheless, during this phase
the tribal chiefs faced various pressures from the rajas, their
relatives, Brahmanas, service holders, the Mughals, and Marathas. Yet
they remained dominant in their own area. Moreover, this kind of pressure
was exerted mainly on the tribal chiefs but there was little pressure on
the general tribal population.
At this stage perhaps the Garhjat chiefs felt the need to authenti• cate
their status and the exercise of political authority over their
territory. They had to legitimise not only their superior position but
also the rapid growth of social differentiation. There was also a need to
account for the increasing power of the ruler. Therefore, in support of
their position, they sponsored the composition of myths of their
20 origin and rajapuranas. With the end of the regional empire of
Orissa, furthermore, there was a shortage of patrons for Brahmanas in
coastal Orissa. Perhaps during this period the Brahmanas of U tkala
migrated to the Garhjat estates in search of patrons, as had happened in
northem India after the disintegration of the Gupta empire (supra).
These myths and rajapuranas placed the rajas as superior beings, Rajar
Mahapuru or God sent person, sent to preserve the rajya. It was contended
that his absence would lead to anarchy. This helped both horizontal and
vertical legitimisation of the Garhjat chiefs. These
rajapuranas were utilized at the Puri darbar when the Jagannath temple
21 was reopened in 18th century. It also legitimised the uya as being a
Raja-Mahapuru amongst the tribals and ethnic groups.
So we see by the 18th century the rulers had absorbed some territories
for themselves (bhogra), their relatives (khorak-posak), their God and
goddesses ( debottar}, for Brahmanas ( brahmottar) and for service
holders. The rajas demanded the nominal allegiance of the tribal chiefs
but, beyond that, the vast majority of the tribals were left

26 FANINDAM DEO
more or less undisturbed. However, the very recognition of these tribal
chiefs led to an elevation in their status. This intensified the process
of social stratification which had quite early beginnings. Various levels
of intermediaries appeared and the ssocio-political system became
increasingly complex. The r~as recognised these intermediaries by
receiving even a nominal allegiance or tribute, in which, the
hierarchical arrangement was acted out.
III
The British occupied south Orissa in 1768, north and coastal Orissa in
1808 and western Orissa in 1818. The above areas were placed under the
Madras, Bengal, and Central provinces respectively. British colonial
rulers realised the special importance that these Garhjat rulers had for
administrative purposes in the relatively unproductive and inaccessible
hill and forest regions of Orissa. These rulers were retained under the
all India colonial policy of 'protection of ancient families
22 and continuation of their dignity and representation. ' This policy
was a political necessity, for the colonial state, and it later proved
helpful e.g., during the paik revolt of Khurda, in 1817, tribal movements
of Chumsar and Sambalpur, in the 1830's and during the revolt of 1857,
these feudatory chiefs and zamindars co-operated with the British and
helped them in capturing some of the leaders of these rebellions and
 23 protest movement.
This policy of colonial rulers also had other far reaching conse•
quences. In the 19th century the British defeated the Marathas in Orissa.
In the changed circumstances the local rajas realised that the colonial
rulers were powerful enough to protect them against both internal and
external dangers. The British on their part wanted an alliance with the
local rajas for their own reasons. So the alliance was struck between
colonial rulers and local rajas. The rajas agreed to pay a certain annual
tribute, and the former agreed to provide assistance as and when required
so long as the rajas' loyalty to British crown was assured.
In the emerging situation, a four-tier stratification followed: ( 1) the
elder branches of Raj families as feudatory chiefs (2) the younger
branches and a few tribal chiefs as rajas and zamindars, (3) umrao,
majhi, gahatia, muthahid as gaotia/thekedar of the villages, and ( 4) the
general mass, both tribal and non-tribal as peasants and landless
labourers. Secondly, the rajas and zamindars enjoyed police and ·
magisterial powers under the protection of the colonial regime.24 This
upset the earlier social and political balance with the tribals.
Previously

Socio-Political Change in Nineteenth Century Orissa 27

the rajas had not dared to antagonise the tribals‫ ؛‬they had avoided the
displacement of tribals and had never transgressed the limit to
acceptability. With the rajas now no more dependent on the support of the
tribals skilled cultivators from outside were invited and settled in
tribal villages. The regular collection of revenue from each village was
started and for this purpose villages were given on thika
(auctioned). Feeling more secure and protected, these rajas even took
repressive measures wherever the tribals opposed them. Not only the
zamindars but even their officials exploited them.
The gradual transformation of what had been gift (given by tribals to
the raja) into dues (as revenue demand) by the Garhjat chiefs under
British protection, and the establishment of a zamindar and
raiyat relationship, alienated the tribal headman from his fellow
tribesmen. In the 19th century the thekedari system further eroded tribal
agrarian relations. Under the new system the tribal headmen were forced
to collect more revenue from their territory to compete with the non-
tribal thekedars who had entered these parts as horse• traders,
distillers and moneylenders. Monetisation spread with the introduction of
the new system of taxation and commutation of feudal dues and services in
to 25 cash. The colonial rulers' bureaucratic capabilities had an
unprecedented and long reach. The system's administrative fingers spread
to the heart of many formerly unadministered areas. All this had its
direct impact on the society thereby affecting its social structure,
economic and agrarian institutions and political system. Tribal society
was losing grip over resources and environment as the encroachment of the
land and forest by outsiders increased.
Under this kind of multi-dimensional pressure different groups responded
in different ways at different times. Some of them accepted a low
position in some places‫ ؛‬others aspired for high rank and became part of
the Garhjat state. Yet other groups could not cope with the external
pressures and withdrew to the inaccessible areas and there were times
when they revolted against 26 exploitation. As a result the people came
to be divided into four groups (i) the vast majority of small and
marginal farmers and landless labourers (ii) a few zamindars
 Garhjat rajas (iii) a groups of gaotia/thekedars, protected and
unprotected and (iv) those who chose to withdraw themselves to the
interior.
In the 19th century there were movements against the system. In some
places the tribal aristocracy actively participated with the non• tribal
aristocracy, seeking a better political dispensation for themselves but
able to use their traditional ties to bring the dissatisfied tribals,

28 FANINDAM DEO
peasants and other groups also to the movement. At other times and
places a particular tribal group would revolt under its own leader who
may not necessarily have been a chief. Such revolts could be against the
emerging social system in which the lowly placed jatis actively
participated and in which the paiks gave tacit support. The alienation of
land, the breakdown of mutuality, the imposition of restrictions and
cesses affected the community as a whole and prompted it to rise against
the sarkar-raja-thekedar nexus.
Prior to colonial rule local deities guaranteed and represented
'vertical solidarity' which was the most important condition of
legitimacy in tribal society. Under British protection it was discarded
and a rigid caste society emerged around the Garhjat which (caste
society) itself was the necessity for establishing a 'horizontal
solidarity' _27
The Garhjat rajas, in order to enhance their status and independent
position, started constructing palaces and temples. Each Garhjat chief,
zamindarand even some goatiasstarted building temples and buildings.
The people had to bear an additional burden beth-begar or forced labour.
Up to the 17th century there were only five Jagannath temples in Orissa
but by the 19th century hundreds ofjagannath temples were built by the
Garhjat rajas. For that they needed Brahmanas. As the Brahmanas of the
Garhjats were looked down upon as halua (cultivator Brahmanas) and jhadua
(from the forest), the Utkali Brahmans were invited to western Orissa.
Land was granted to the Brahmanas and to
28 temples by the rulers at the expense of tribals.
In the 19th century thejagannath cult was under the iron grip of Raja-
Brahman nexus. The Savara-devatas (Jagannath) had been hijacked by the
ruling classes of Orissa from the tribals and used as tool to exercise
their authority over the latter. Dinabandhu (the friend of the
downtrodden)-another name of Jagannath-had been Brahmanised as
Badathakura (the great God) beyond the reach of the downtrodden. Some of
the tribal groups were not even allowed to enter the temple dedicated to
their God.
The tribal-peasant saw the·orthodox Jagannath cult and the Brahmanas as
being responsible for the loss of their traditional cultivable area. This
antagonism was· hardened by the cultural differences between the tribal-
peasant and Brahmanas, which was accentuated by the latter's ideas of
purity, pollution, dietary restrictionS and rigid caste distinctions.
However, it would be wrong to assume that under such an emerging order
and social pressure all tribal groups revolted en
masse against the exploiter. As a matter of fact, we find that the
reaction of each group in Orissa arose out of its own historical context.
The meaning a people give to an entity or an event are out of a range of

Socio-Political Change in Nineteenth Century Orissa 29

 meanings and options available to them at the time of their particular
experience of that entity or event.
The lower strata of the society were thus chafing under the emerg• ing
unequal system. One of the tribal poets, Bhima Bhoi, came out with his
work. He preached that 'the final deliverer' had already appeared in
Orissa in the form of Mahima Swamy. God Jagannath of Puri, he said, had
left His temple and become a disciple of Mahima Swamy. He saw the
inequalities of the system as being responsible for the miseries of the
low caste people and Adivasis. The followers of Mahima Dharma were,
therefore, forbidden to accept anything from raja-brahman-barber-
washerman and prostitutes. The followers of Mahima Dharma were also
prohibited from worshipping idols, and from taking part in traditional
rituals. They preached the equality of human beings because they believed
in the uniform presence of formless God in every human being. Therefore,
they rejected caste differences. They saw the raja-brahman combine and
their associates as the cause of their miseries, and the Lord Jagannath
as their protector. In order to counteract this situation, they turned
the weapon of the Brahmanas around: i.e. they declared the raja-brahmana
and their associates to be untouchables. To take matters further the
followers of Mahima Dharma are forbidden from taking Jagannath
prasada. Some of the followers even made an attempt to burn the idol
ofjagannath in 1881. The dharma seems to have adopted a position of open
attack on the orthodox tradition of Brahmanical restriction upon the
entry of tribals and some other low-caste groups into the Jagannath
temple. It appears also to be an attack on idol worship. The beliefs and
practices of Mahima Dharma merit separate and more detailed treatment
which space here does not permit. For the present it is sufficient to say
that the intricate socio-political changes taking place in 19th century
Orissa lay at the base of the emerging Mahima Dharma.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Singh, 1984: 317‫ ؛‬Kulke, 1982:245 2. Kulke, 1978, 104-114‫؛‬Banerjee
1931,Appendix‫؛‬Wills, 1919,196-262.
3. Kulke, 1978, 106‫ ؛‬Tiwari, 1985, 35 4. Deo, 1990,86.
5. Stein, 1969, 179-185, talks about 'sustained displacement' of tribal
society in the 'nuclear areas' of South India. Contrasted with the South
Indian process of 'sustained displacement' of tribals, there are
processes of integration and acculturation in Orissa‫ ؛‬Kulke, 1978, 104-
114.
6. Sahu, 1983, 133-144‫ ؛‬1984, 148-160.

30 FANINDAM DEO
7. Eschamann, 1978,97.
8. Kulke, 1986, 139-155.
9. Sahu, 1971, 95‫ ؛‬Sah, 1976, 125-129‫ ؛‬Tiwari, 1985,35 suggested the
tribal origin of this dynasty. Cl/, III, 190ff‫ ؛‬I, xi 185ff.
10. Cll, III, 199, lines 25-26.
11. IA, VII, 250 fn. 26‫ ؛‬EJIX, 284, fn. 10. There was a division in
Saravapura kingdom called Sabarabhogika. El, XXXIV, 28ff. Perhaps rulers
had special administrative
division (bhoga) where aboriginals lived. In one source a Brahmana was
given a village and allowed to enjoy the bhoga but was to contribute
dhanya and hiranya
to the ruler i.e. it is liable for dues. EI, XXXI, 263 ff.
12. Nandi, 1979,70-100.
13. Tiwari, 1985,35.
14. Sharma, 1965, 159.
15. Kulke, 1976,6.
 16. Panigrahi, 1981,38.
17. Sahu,1980,254.
18. ibid, 256.
19. Toynbee, 1960,24.
20. Deo, 1990,64-65.
21. ibid.
22. Foreign Department Proceedings, (Political), 13 September, 1833, no.
56-57‫؛‬July 1881 letter no. 1778/90 dt. 18-5-1880, and 1777/90 dt. 18-5-
1881. National Archives of India, New Delhi.
23. FareignDepartmentProceedings, (Political), 6 February, 1834, no.
102-103, National Archives oflndia, New Delhi‫؛‬
ChhattisgarhDiviswnalRecard, IX, 49, SI. no. 50, 9th July 1856, Madhya
Pradesh Record Room, Nagpur.
24. Aitchesan, 1929, I and V.
25. Officially a new sikka or coin was introduced in Orissa in 1819, and
the cowrie was
withdrawn.
26. Deo, op. cit., 155.
27. Kulke, 1976,11.
28. De, 1971,55-60.
BIBUOGRAPHY
Aitchesan, C.V., 1983, Collection of Treaties, engagements and Sanads,
I. V. Mittal Publication Delhi (First edition, Delhi, 1929).
Banerjee, R.D., 1931, History of Orissa, II, R. Chatteiji, Calcutta.
De. S.C., 1971, 'Study of some Maufi Grants and Interesting Facts
Gleaned from them', New Aspects of History of Orissa, Samba! pur
University, pp. 55-60.
Corpuslnscriptionumlndicarum (CII), II, III.
Deo, F., 1990, 'History oflnteraction Between Tribal peoples and Their
Socio• Cultural Environment in Chhatisgarh Region' Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Ephigraphia Indica, IX, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXVI.
Eschmann, A., 1986, 'Hinduization of Tribal Deities of Orissa: The
Formative Phase', in A. Eschmann, H.K Kulke, G. Tripathi ( eds.), The
Cult of]agannath and the Regional Tradition of Orissa, Manohar, Delhi,
pp. 79-98 (First edition,

Socio-Political Change in Nineteenth Century Orissa 31

South Asia Institute, 1978) 1986, 'Mahima Dharma: An Autochthonous Hindu
Reform Movement' in A. Eschmann, H. Kulke and G. Tripathy ( eds.), The
Cult of ]agannath and theRegionalTraditionofOrissa,Manohar, Delhi, pp.
375-410.
Indian Antiquary, (IA), VII.
Kulke, H., 1976, 'Kshatriyaisation and Social Change: A Study of
Changing India', in S.D. Pillai ( ed.), Aspect of Changing India, Popular
Prakashan, Bombay, pp.
398-409.
1978, 'Early State Formation and Royal Legitimisation in Ancient
Orissa', in M. Das. ( ed.) Side Lights on History and Culture of Orissa,
Vidyapuri, Cuttack, pp. 104-114.
1982, 'Fragmentation and Segmentation Versus Integration? Reflections on
the concept oflndian Feudalism', Studies in History, IV, 2, pp. 237-263.
Nandi, R., 1981, 'Client, Ritual and Conflict in Early Brahmanical
Order', Indian Historical Review, Kitab Mahal, Cuttack.
Sah, AP., 1976, Life in Medieval Orissa, Chaukhamba Orientalia,
Varanasi.
 Sahu, B.P., 1983, 'Social Morphology and Physiology of Early Medieval
Orissa ( C.A.D. 400-1 000) ', Proceedings of the Indian History Congress,
pp. 133-144.
1984, 'Ancient Orissa: The Dynamics oflnternal transformation of the
Tribal Society', Pfoceedings of t‫؛‬h:e Indian History Congress, pp. 148-
160.
Sahu, N.K.,1971, 'A Survey of the History of Orissa',
NewAspectsofHistory of Orissa,
Sambalpur University, pp. 9-24.
1980, History of Orissa, Nalanda, Cuttack.
SharmaR.S. ,1965, Indian Feudalism: C. 300-1200, UniversityofCalcutta,
Calcutta.
Singh, K.S., 1984, 'A Study of State Formation Among Tribal Communities'
in · R.S. Sharma and V. Jha ( eds.) Indian Society: Historical Probings
in Memory of
D.D. Kosambi, 1 Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 3" ed., pp. 317-
326.
Stein, B., 1969, 'Integration of Agrarian System of South India', in RE.
Frykenberg (ed.) Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, The
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 176-216.
Tiwari, S.P ., 1985, Comprehensive History of Orissa, DakisanaKosala
under Saravapurias,
Punthi Pustak, Calcutta.
Toynbee, G., 1960, 'A Sketch of the History of Orissa from 1803-1828',
Orissa Historical Research Journal, (First printed in Calcutta, 1878).
Wills, C.U_., 1919, 'Territorial System of Rajput Kingdoms of Medieval
Chhatisgarh' ,Journal of Asiatic Society ofBenga~ XV, pp. 196-262.